A “one time tax” is pure third worldism. It’s like Chicago trying to close its deficit by selling off its parking meters. But Brin should propose an alternative tax that is sustainable.
Keep telling yourself that you are richer because the number is bigger. If you want to be even richer move to Zimbabwe where everyone is a zillionaire.
We are all poorer than 20 or 30 years ago. Most cities are filled with people chained to work, very few people are actually enjoying time off.
Roads, parks, beaches, rivers, the nice places people should be enjoying with family and friends are mostly empty but the roads and workplaces are overflowing.
I used to admire these two people when I was a teen, but look at them now. Where is their goal to do good?. May be money really blind people. Why cannot they just spend 5% onetime? I'm wondering how much they will spend if there is recurring tax of 40%?
These oligarchs have enormous power over us, at least impose 50% recurring tax as a start. In 19s tax rates were really high (even 94%)
Zillionaires troll to avoid taxes. Research Buy-Borrow-Die clause in taxation if you can. Using that clause they hardly pay any taxes so tax laws have been hacked to allow it. They pay less in percentage than people who work for Wendy's . They naturally resort to red baiting for their own benefit. $100M to him is like $100 for other people.
At least I understand the "innovation and capital will leave the state" argument.
Brin says he opposes the law out of fear California will become the USSR. This is a democratic vote, on a one-time tax, that leaves private property and corporate ownership structures intact. It's a ridiculous stretch, the motives are transparent.
This was always such a hollow argument... where are they going to leave? Some tax heaven like Panama or Cayman Islands? South America? Are they trying to get kidnapped for ransom? These people are not going to leave, because outside of 1st world countries they will get eaten alive.
I don't understand the point of a "one time" tax. What happens once the money runs out a year later? Another "one time" tax?? Why not implement a permanent tax if you want to permanently solve the problem??
If they are blocking the one time tax, would they allow for a perma one. Don't be naive. No matter what type of tax it is, they will throw money to keep the status quo. $100M is chomp change to him and he can deduct it most likely.
It's basically to send a message to a group of people that they should fuck off. There is a reasonable gamut of opinions about whether this is valid. But I think it's fair to say Californians are upset about billionaires, and that this is a coherent way to message that opposition. (Similar to the dumbfuck states messaging around wokeness or whatever. A narrowing minority of America is prosperity first.)
This really ends one of two ways. Either California's defaults on it's unfunded pension liabilities and screws a whole generation of government workers, or there's a federal bailout and people in states like Texas and Florida stop paying federal taxes.
Why is it that you consider the possibility that Texas and Florida will "stop paying federal taxes" (how?), while omitting the possibility that California itself will do the same rather than defaulting?
If California stoped, I believe that would trigger red states to do similar in protest. I don't think Texas and Florida would be the only ones. It's a different situation entirely when one state stops vs when multiple states stop.
A “one time tax” is pure third worldism. It’s like Chicago trying to close its deficit by selling off its parking meters. But Brin should propose an alternative tax that is sustainable.
CA’s spending, including Federal funds, was $183B 20 years ago, before the GFC.
Today it’s $539B. Total inflation has been about 64%, California’s population has grown by only about 10%.
California has a spending and state capacity problem, not a tax problem.
https://dof.ca.gov/media/docs/budget/historical-budget-infor...
We’re like, a lot richer than before the GFC in California though.
Keep telling yourself that you are richer because the number is bigger. If you want to be even richer move to Zimbabwe where everyone is a zillionaire.
We are all poorer than 20 or 30 years ago. Most cities are filled with people chained to work, very few people are actually enjoying time off.
Roads, parks, beaches, rivers, the nice places people should be enjoying with family and friends are mostly empty but the roads and workplaces are overflowing.
Then why the need for new taxes? You’re right that California tax revenue is way up, too.
fairly certain the sustainability problem here is the spending problem, not a taxation problem.
I used to admire these two people when I was a teen, but look at them now. Where is their goal to do good?. May be money really blind people. Why cannot they just spend 5% onetime? I'm wondering how much they will spend if there is recurring tax of 40%?
These oligarchs have enormous power over us, at least impose 50% recurring tax as a start. In 19s tax rates were really high (even 94%)
Zillionaires troll to avoid taxes. Research Buy-Borrow-Die clause in taxation if you can. Using that clause they hardly pay any taxes so tax laws have been hacked to allow it. They pay less in percentage than people who work for Wendy's . They naturally resort to red baiting for their own benefit. $100M to him is like $100 for other people.
At least I understand the "innovation and capital will leave the state" argument.
Brin says he opposes the law out of fear California will become the USSR. This is a democratic vote, on a one-time tax, that leaves private property and corporate ownership structures intact. It's a ridiculous stretch, the motives are transparent.
> innovation and capital will leave the state
This was always such a hollow argument... where are they going to leave? Some tax heaven like Panama or Cayman Islands? South America? Are they trying to get kidnapped for ransom? These people are not going to leave, because outside of 1st world countries they will get eaten alive.
I don't understand the point of a "one time" tax. What happens once the money runs out a year later? Another "one time" tax?? Why not implement a permanent tax if you want to permanently solve the problem??
If they are blocking the one time tax, would they allow for a perma one. Don't be naive. No matter what type of tax it is, they will throw money to keep the status quo. $100M is chomp change to him and he can deduct it most likely.
But what is the point of a 1-time tax? It doesn't solve anything! It's just a slush fund for the SEIU!
They pay off some debt that has piled up. Like paying off your credit card debt.
> don't understand the point of a "one time" tax
It's basically to send a message to a group of people that they should fuck off. There is a reasonable gamut of opinions about whether this is valid. But I think it's fair to say Californians are upset about billionaires, and that this is a coherent way to message that opposition. (Similar to the dumbfuck states messaging around wokeness or whatever. A narrowing minority of America is prosperity first.)
[dead]
Gavin Newsom vs Gavin Belsom.
The tax is just Gavin positioning before the 2028 elections.
Even taxing 1% of wealth annually makes more sense than this.
And oh yeah, let's fund healthcare, but let's also sleep on the housing crisis and the homelessness crisis.
On the other side, Prop 41 and 42 are absolute jokes. It's like Robert California himself wrote those laws or something.
We do tax gross 1% of wealth, it’s called property taxes. Only applies to middle class folks in their 30s though.
Just leave the state. California has a monoparty and nearly unlimited tax revenue, but still fails to deliver the dream state the socialists desire.
This really ends one of two ways. Either California's defaults on it's unfunded pension liabilities and screws a whole generation of government workers, or there's a federal bailout and people in states like Texas and Florida stop paying federal taxes.
Why is it that you consider the possibility that Texas and Florida will "stop paying federal taxes" (how?), while omitting the possibility that California itself will do the same rather than defaulting?
If California stoped, I believe that would trigger red states to do similar in protest. I don't think Texas and Florida would be the only ones. It's a different situation entirely when one state stops vs when multiple states stop.
It doesn't seem like you have anything to justify these (pretty extreme) claims, bluntly.
the “pro-tax people” should just run the ads with this as in “see how much they have that they can spare $100M like it is nothing - tax them” :)
[dead]
[dead]